RE: [PATCH 1/3] gdb: Make tagged pointer support configurable.

["Schimpe, Christina" <christina.schimpe@intel.com>]

Hi Luis,

Thanks a lot for your feedback!

> Thanks for the series. More of a general question, we're splitting the more
> general handling of bit removal from addresses into 3 different categories in
> gdb. Isn't gdbserver also affected by this change? At least for aarch64 we have
> non-address-bits removal.

Hm, so far I don't see an issue with gdbserver.
IIUC, the aarch64 non-address-bits removal with gdbserver is due to the exception
"for signals raised in response to watchpoint debug exceptions" described in commit
"Fix TBI handling for watchpoints".  Is there anything else that I might have missed?
For amd64 we don't have this exception.
 
> Do we need to do anything in gdbserver so it can properly handle removal of
> non-address-bits on its own, without the help of gdb?
> 
> Also, another more general comment is related to the naming of the hooks. I
> suppose it is down to personal preference, but spelling out the entire word is
> likely to make the meaning of a function/hook clearer. For instance:
> 
> gdbarch_remove_non_address_bits ->
> gdbarch_remove_non_addr_bits_memory
> 
> Maybe we should...
> 
> gdbarch_remove_non_address_bits ->
> gdbarch_remove_non_address_bits_memory
> 
> The same applies to the other hooks and function names.
> 
> wpt -> watchpoint
> 
> or
> 
> wpt -> hw_watchpoint
> 
> bpt -> breakpoint
> 
> or
> 
> bpt -> hw_breakpoint
> 

I thought that "addr", "bpt" and "wpt" are well known abbreviations in GDB and
preferred to have shorter function names in that case.
But I am fine with adapting the function names, too.

Christina
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de <http://www.intel.de>
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Sharon Heck, Tiffany Doon Silva  
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928